Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
K Kranthi Kumar vs The Registrar on 24 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 278 of 2021
(Taken up through video conferencing)
K. Kranthi Kumar, S/o K. Prabakar,
Hindu, aged about 35 years,
R/o. 28/265 Boya Street,
Old Town Ananthapuram-515001,
Ananthapuram District.
.. Appellant.
Versus
The Registrar,
Sri Krishnadevaraya University,
Ananthapuram-515003 and others.
.. Respondents.
Counsel for the appellant : Ms. Akella Padma
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. M. Karibasaiah
ORAL JUDGMENT
Dt: 24.06.2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Heard Ms. Akella Padma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. M. Karibasaiah, learned counsel for the respondents.
This appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P.No.2323 of 2021
against an order dated 20.03.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in
the said writ petition, declining to suspend the order impugned in the writ
petition as an interim measure.
By an order dated 23.01.2012, the Registrar of Sri Krishna
Devaraya University, Anantapuramu, the first respondent herein, on the
basis of the recommendations of the selection committee, had appointed
the appellant/writ petitioner as teaching faculty in Pharmacy on ad-hoc
HCJ&NJS,J
W.A.No.278 of 2021
basis along with some others for the academic year 2011-12 and such
appointment was continued from time to time and was last extended by
an order dated 18.08.2020 of the first respondent-Registrar for the
academic year 2020-21. It is not in dispute that the academic year ends
on 30.06.2021. Respondent No.3-Principal of S.K.U. College of
Pharmaceutical Sciences, Sri Krishna Devaraya University, issued Memo
dated 04.01.2021, holding that the ad-hoc services of the appellant/writ
petitioner as a teaching faculty were not required with immediate effect.
The said Memo was issued in the context of failure on the part of the
appellant to attend to invigilation work entrusted to him.
Challenging the said Memo, the appellant filed the writ petition.
The primary contention advanced by Ms. A. Padma is that the
appellant had been continuing in service for the last nine years and that
the appellant having been appointed by the Registrar of the University,
the Principal has no authority to discontinue or terminate his services.
Mr. M. Karibasaiah submits that the appellant was not willing to do
invigilation work and because of his disobedience, a show-cause notice
was issued to him and the explanation submitted by the appellant to the
said show-cause notice was found to be not satisfactory by the Director of
the College and, accordingly, the Principal had issued the Memo dated
04.01.2021.
On a query of the Court, Mr. M. Karibasaiah submits that the
Director is lower in rank than the Registrar.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, we are of the considered opinion
that the appellant/writ petitioner having been in service for the last nine
years on being appointed by the Registrar of the University and his
services having been extended by the Registrar for the academic year
HCJ&NJS,J
W.A.No.278 of 2021
2020-2021, an interim order is called for as it was the Principal who had
discontinued the services of the appellant/writ petitioner.
Accordingly, we allow the appellant/writ petitioner to discharge his
duties till the end of the academic year 2020-2021, i.e., till 30.06.2021.
The order of the learned single Judge stands modified to that
extent only and the writ appeal is allowed and disposed of as indicated
above. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ NINALA JAYASURYA, J
IBL
HCJ&NJS,J
W.A.No.278 of 2021
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT APPEAL No. 278 of 2021
(per Arup Kumar Goswami, CJ)
Dt: 24.06.2021
IBL
